360
Energy certificates
1.8% of all BIMI certs
50.7%
High-notability rate
Highest of any sector globally
+42%
2024 → 2025 growth
85 → 121 annual issuances
15.7%
Entrust (Entrust was publicly distrusted by Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox in November 2024, ending new certificate issuance) exposure
58 certs requiring migration
25
Austria certificates
#3 globally — unexplained anomaly

01 · The paradox

The Sector Where Brand Giants Deployed and Nobody Followed

Every other sector in the BIMI dataset follows a recognisable adoption pattern: large brands deploy first,establishing a high-notability concentration, then mid-market organisations follow as they see the competitive signal. Technology/SaaS has followed this path to 5217 certificates. Banking is following it toward 5,000. Even Healthcare, despite its structural procurement delays, is on the same curve.

Energy is different. The 50.7% high-notability rate — meaning more than half of all energy BIMI certificate holders are globally or regionally well-known organisations — is the highest in the dataset. But total volume is only 360. The large brands have deployed. The mid-market and regional utilities have not followed. That gap has persisted for three years, and it represents the clearest structural anomaly in the entire BIMI market.

The anomaly

50.7% high-notability means EDF, Engie, TotalEnergies, BP, Shell, National Grid, Duke Energy — the sector’s most recognisable brands — have already deployed BIMI. Yet only 360 certificates exist globally against a sector that has thousands of utilities, energy retailers, and grid operators sending regular customer communications.

What it tells you

Energy BIMI has reached the end of the first wave — large brand deployment — without triggering the second wave that followed in other sectors. The gap is not a demand signal. It is a distribution signal: energy companies are not hearing about BIMI through the same channels that reached
banking and tech. When they do, the adoption curve will be steep.

“A sector where more than half the BIMI deployers are globally recognised institutions is not an early adopter market. It is a market where the early majority has been waiting for someone to knock on the door. The mid-market energy and utilities sector has not yet had the BIMI conversation — not because the case is weak, but because nobody has made it directly to them.”

02 · The threat context

Why Critical Infrastructure Emails Are a High-Value Target

State-sponsored threat actors and ransomware groups have identified energy sector organisations as priority targets. The attack surface that BIMI addresses — brand impersonation in customer and stakeholder email — is particularly acute in energy for two reasons that do not apply to most other sectors.

Critical communications carry compliance authority. Utilities send emails that customers are legally or contractually required to act on — billing communications, outage notifications, smart meter data, tariff changes. An impersonating email asking a customer to “update billing details” or “confirm account access” carries the implicit authority of a regulated service. Recipients are conditioned to respond, not to scrutinise.

Business email compromise targets energy procurement. Beyond customer communications, energy company email identities are impersonated in B2B contexts — fraudulent supplier communications, fake invoice notifications, spoofed executive emails targeting energy procurement teams. A BIMI deployment on the corporate sending domain provides internal and external stakeholders with a verified identity signal that reduces the effectiveness of these attacks.

The regulatory dimension

Energy regulators in the UK (Ofgem), US (FERC, NERC CIP), EU (ENTSO-E), and Australia (AEMO) all reference cybersecurity requirements for critical infrastructure operators. NERC CIP standards in the US explicitly address communication security for bulk electric system operators. While none currently mandate BIMI specifically, the direction of regulatory travel — toward authenticated, verified digital communications with customers and counterparties — aligns directly with what BIMI provides.

03 · Geography

US Leads — India and Austria Are the Unexpected #2 and #3

Energy BIMI certificates by country — top 8
Austria at 25 certificates — disproportionate to its size and explained by its centralised utility structure

Energy certs — US: 152; AT: 25; IN:
26; FR: 23; AU: 25; GB: 23; DE: 20; NL: 13
CountryEnergy certs% of country totalNotable context
US United States15241.2%Duke Energy, PG&E, Dominion — large investor-owned utilities leading
AT Austria256.8%Highest energy sector share of any country. EVN, Verbund, Wien Energie deployment
IN India267%NTPC, Power Grid, state distribution companies
FR France236.2%EDF, Engie, TotalEnergies subsidiaries — centralised structure mirrors Austria pattern
AU Australia256.8%AGL, Origin, APA Group — deregulated retail energy market driving deployment
GB United Kingdom236.2%Big Six energy suppliers — low relative to market size
DE Germany205.4%E.ON, RWE, EnBW subsidiaries — below France despite larger market
The Austria anomaly explained

Austria holds 6.8% of its BIMI certificates in the Energy sector — by far the highest energy concentration of any country. Austria’s electricity market is dominated by a small number of large integrated utility groups (EVN, Verbund, Wien Energie, Energie Steiermark) with complex multi-domain corporate structures. Each subsidiary domain of a major Austrian utility group may hold its own BIMI certificate, producing a multiplier effect on certificate count from a concentrated corporate family. This is the same pattern seen in Finanz Informatik (134 domains) and Condé Nast (81 domains) in the multi-domain analysis.

04 · Growth trajectory

Consistent Growth From a Low Base

Energy BIMI issuances by year — 2021 to 2026 YTD
42% growth in 2025 — accelerating from a low base

Energy issuances — 2021:
9; 2022: 23; 2023:
50; 2024: 85; 2025:
121; 2026 YTD: 81

At 2025’s growth rate, Energy will reach approximately 600 cumulative certificates by end of 2027. For context, Banking crossed 600 certificates in 2022 — 5 years ahead of where Energy currently sits in its adoption curve. Energy’s mid-market adoption wave, when it arrives, will likely be faster than Banking’s was, because the enabling infrastructure (DMARC enforcement, CA relationships) is now far more established than it was in 2022.

FAQ

Energy Sector Questions

Do energy regulators require BIMI or DMARC?

NERC CIP (North American Electric Reliability Corporation Critical Infrastructure Protection) standards do not currently mandate BIMI or DMARC specifically. However, CIP-007 (Systems Security Management) and CIP-011 (Information Protection) create obligations around communication security that DMARC enforcement satisfies. UK Ofgem has referenced email authentication in its cybersecurity guidance for energy retailers. EU NIS2 Directive requirements — which apply to energy operators as essential service providers — include email security controls in their scope. The direction of regulatory travel is toward authenticated communications.

Why is energy BIMI adoption so low despite the sector's obvious phishing exposure?

Three structural factors explain the gap. First, energy utilities have longer IT procurement cycles than technology or retail companies — a BIMI decision that takes weeks in a SaaS company takes months in a regulated utility. Second, BIMI awareness in the energy sector has been lower because the channels through which BIMI has been promoted (email marketing conferences, digital marketing communities) have less overlap with energy industry IT and security communities. Third, many smaller utilities and energy retailers have not yet completed DMARC enforcement — the prerequisite — because they have not faced the same Google/Yahoo sender requirement pressure as high-volume commercial email senders.

Does BIMI work for both customer-facing and B2B energy email?

BIMI operates at the sending domain level — it applies to any email sent from a domain where BIMI is deployed, regardless of recipient type. Customer billing emails, outage notifications, and smart meter communications all benefit from the verified inbox mark. B2B communications to grid operators, regulators, and procurement counterparties also display the verified mark in supported mailbox providers. The brand identity verification is consistent across both audiences from a single certificate deployment.
BIMI deployment for energy and utilities organisations
VMCcerts supports energy sector organisations with BIMI readiness assessment, VMC and CMC deployment, and Entrust migration — with experience across investor-owned utilities, energy retailers, and grid operators.
Cite This Report



VMCcerts Research. (2026). Energy and Utilities BIMI Benchmark 2026 [Research Report]. VMCcerts. https://vmccerts.com/research/energy-utilities-bimi-benchmark-2026
VMCcerts Research. “Energy and Utilities BIMI Benchmark 2026.” VMCcerts, 2026, https://vmccerts.com/research/energy-utilities-bimi-benchmark-2026.
@techreport{vmccerts2026EnergyBIMI,
author = {VMCcerts Research},
title = {Energy and Utilities BIMI Benchmark 2026},
institution = {VMCcerts},
year = {2026},
url = {https://vmccerts.com/research/energy-utilities-bimi-benchmark-2026},
note = {Dataset: VMCcerts BIMI Dataset v2026.2. Snapshot: 2026-07-02.}
}
TY – RPRT
AU – VMCcerts Research
TI – Energy and Utilities BIMI Benchmark 2026
PY – 2026
PB – VMCcerts
UR – https://vmccerts.com/research/energy-utilities-bimi-benchmark-2026
ER –